Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Best Cam Contract Extension Possibility


CanadianCat

Recommended Posts

Start with a 1 year extension. That reduces the risk for both sides. From the Panthers' perspective, they get extra time to evaluate him, don't make the "$36 million mistake" that Tepper spoke about and they don't have to use trade capital to move up in the draft immediately. 

From Cam's side, he gets a year to prove himself. If he returns to form, the contract is short enough to where he'll be able to take a piece of this QB market. On the downside, he won't be playing on a lame duck deal with no guaranteed money. And he won't face the risk of getting franchise tagged next year should be ball out.

I think that's the most reasonable compromise for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has to be something both parties agree. For the Panthers, it would need to be a contract with protections added in, such as an ability to cut without consequences in a short period. For Cam, he would need to see enough money to be a contract that puts him in the upper echelon.

I've said all along that I could see a 5-year contract being offered in which the real term of the contract is 3 years. In other words, the last two years are option years that are not likely to be realized, but inflate the contract enough to make the deal palatable for re-signing. Brees has signed contracts like this where the poison pill is in the out years, but then has a new contract in place to kick the can down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always comes back to is he completely healthy?   

If so....1 dollar more than Matt Ryan. With some protection on injury. 

I think QB salaries are out of whack.  However even teams with plenty of cap suck.   I don't see a direct correlation between having salary cap flexibility and having a good team. 

 

That being said.. the real question is what would he play for?  His body got hurt on the Carolina Panther watch.  Maybe got extended because we wouldn't bench him when hurt.  So I wouldn't play without guarantees behind that offensive line. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DubE_4MR said:

Start with a 1 year extension. That reduces the risk for both sides. From the Panthers' perspective, they get extra time to evaluate him, don't make the "$36 million mistake" that Tepper spoke about and they don't have to use trade capital to move up in the draft immediately. 

From Cam's side, he gets a year to prove himself. If he returns to form, the contract is short enough to where he'll be able to take a piece of this QB market. On the downside, he won't be playing on a lame duck deal with no guaranteed money. And he won't face the risk of getting franchise tagged next year should be ball out.

I think that's the most reasonable compromise for both sides.

I like this plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Carolina Panthers have well over 100 million dollars tied up in two linebackers just because. I get the apprehension to Newton's future from the injury standpoint obviously. But in terms of resource allocation, no quarterback worth his salt is ever going to be "affordable" again, and the penny pinchers need to accept that or consider watching another sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...